DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Owners opt out of CBA

NFL owners opt out of labor agreement
By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writers
40 minutes ago

Buzz Up PrintATLANTA (AP)—The NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to end their agreement with the players’ union in 2011, two years before the deal was to expire.

The league, however, emphasized that it will keep negotiating with the NFL Players Association and said games will be played “without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons.”

The owners had until Nov. 8 to opt out of the agreement, a provision written into the deal when it was signed in March 2006. They decided to act early, partly because they didn’t want to do so while the 2008 season had begun.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFLPA, said on Sirius NFL Radio he learned of the owners’ decision by e-mail from commissioner Roger Goodell.

“My response to his e-mail was very simple: ‘What a surprise,”’ Upshaw said sarcastically.

Upshaw has been predicting this the last few months and last weekend referred to the owners as “greedy.”

Essentially, the deadline for a new contract is March 2009, an agreement that would avoid a 2010 without a salary cap. The original contract, signed in 1993, specified that the final year of the deal be without a cap.

“As they say during the draft, we’re on the clock,” Upshaw said. “That’s basically what it means.”

The owners noted in their statement that they are paying $4.5 billion to players this year, just under 60 percent of their total revenues as specified in the 2006 agreement.

They acknowledge that before the 1996 agreement the pendulum had swung toward them. Now, they contend, the new deal combined with a decline in the economy has made the agreement more favorable to players.

Negotiations already have started and will continue with no immediate threat to the order of business. In fact, the deal, originally scheduled to end in 2013, had the opt-out built in.

“When we negotiated this deal we had two stop points that you could decide to terminate, either side,” Upshaw said. “Obviously, the owners have decided to take this termination early. We expected it. But it means that there is football through 2010, not through 2012.”

To be honest, wouldnt the Browns benefit from No Cap? Then it in turn goes to how deep the owners pockets are. Lerner isn't a cheap guy, nor does he mind spending the cash. I want a Salary cap, but if it goes away for a year, can't we benefit from that?

Well, I can see this headed for a lengthy discussion but it just irks me that the owners are miffed about giving just under 60% to the players when it's the players that make this game what it is. Without the players, there wouldn't be an NFL. Granted, there are a lot of ways to generate revenue in today's NFL. But it all comes back to the games. And it takes players to play the games. Plain and simple. I'm not a big fan of Gene Upshaw, but I agree with him, the owners are being greedy and if this results in a lockout in 2011, I'm gonna be really upset. I need me some football.

Not a surprise. Hopefully they can get something worked out.

That's one reason I truly love the NFL is that, every year, different teams move into the forefront. The way you build a "dynasty" is through the FO and coaching. Any team can win when you have all the money in the world and can put all the talent on that one team. But truly good teams have to fit in other pieces.

Upshaw won't be around much longer to worry about it..

I agree but the new Players Representative will. Whoever it may be?!

I think between the players and the owners, neither side is going to win the argument using "the other side is greedy" as their point of contention. It looks like there is an awfully big pie to be divided up, provided by us the fans... and they are squabbling over it like children.

Very good points Punch. Good idea about the rookie contracts. Give them a cap and avoid this whole mess. But Upshaw said the NFLPA would never agree to that. Well, something's gonna have to give.

OPT OUT WILL CREATE HAVOC FOR FRONT OFFICES
Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2008, 1:24 p.m. EDT

Earlier in the day, we pointed out a statement from Todd Archer’s article regarding the negotiations between the Cowboys and cornerback Terence Newman.

“If NFL owners opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement at their spring meeting today in Atlanta, contracts done afterward would have to follow more stringent salary-cap rules set up for 2010 and beyond,” Archer writes.

The truth, however, is that there’s no magic to the timing of the opt out. Now that the owners have pulled the plug two years early on the CBA, 2009 will be the last year with a salary cap, and 2010 will have no salary cap, but likewise will have certain specific restrictions applicable to free agency.

And so now all contracts — those negotiated yesterday, today, and tomorrow — will become part of the overall picture that each front office much consider when attempting to comply with the applicable salary cap rules. This includes contracts signed even before the 2006 CBA extension, when no one knew that 2006 might be the last capped year, or that 2009 might be the last capped year, too.

Moving forward, NFL front offices will have to come up with contracts that comply with the 2008 cap rules, the rules of the last capped year in 2009, and the realities of the uncapped year. They’ll also have to account for the presently unknown terms of an extension, if an extension is eventually reached.

In other words, it’s got the potential to be a huge mess for every NFL team, and it likely makes the league more willing to head to the uncapped year in 2010 after they wade through the bigger mess, which will be the last capped year.

And it all begins in less than ten months.

Tick. Tock.
pft

Lovely. So the big question is, how will this all affect the future of the Cleveland Browns?

Good points Peen. That leads kind of into some rumors around the league that places like Cincinnati and Buffalo, small market teams, may not be able to pay the utilities due to the 60% rule in the next few years, hence the rumors of their imminent demise and rebirth in a new city. 60% is a lot of the pie to the smallest group of individuals who make a team go. It's just not in the leagues best interest to have the cap that high and escalating with each new CBA.

I think if you look at how the players contracts have been structured for a team as a whole for the past couple of years. I think you will find that many owners / FO have had their eye on 2010 as a point to somewhat cheat the old plan, by back loading the contracts to accelerate or expire on that year.
I would hope that the owners would not be stupid enough to try and give us replacement players if they don’t reach an agreement by then.

Why, we watched replacement players for years.

The way I see it, both sides are greedy. So that argument doesn't work for either side. Unfortunately, I see this heading down a bad road, as in, no football for an extended period of time. At least the loss of the 2011 season. Unless the players give, cause I don't see the owners giving in.

They should give the players 45%, and the owners 45%, and use the other 10% for the older, retired players that didn't make tons of money. Perfect world, lol.

Oh, btw, it's not the players, owners, or fans that make any sport.....it's a combo of all 3. Can't have sports without all 3. Unfortunately, it's the fans that suffer far more than the owners or players.

That fantasy crap is no reason to do or not do anything regarding the league itself... I can't believe that guy would actually consider it as a valid argument for anything.

Another article to shed some light...

Uncapped years would actually limit free agency
By Pat Kirwan | NFL.com
Senior Analyst


Now that NFL owners have voted unanimously to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, they still have all of 2008 and 2009 to negotiate a new CBA before the "trigger" points that are in place to encourage negotiations would fire and things wouldn't be as we know them today.

The one factor fans have heard the most about is that 2010 and 2011 would be "uncapped" years. But there are three main trigger points that will go off in 2010 if there isn't a new CBA in place, and they may offset the fear of life with no salary cap. They are: 1) free agency will require six years of service (instead of four years in 2010 and five years in 2011); 2) teams will have three tags to use to restrict free agents instead of one tag, as they do now; and 3) teams that go deep in the playoffs could have some spending restrictions.


Lisa Blumenfeld / Getty Images
DeMeco Ryans would be a highly sought after free agent if he hit the market in 2010.

Let's take a look at the practical side of these three concepts to get a better understanding of just what they mean to the players and the clubs:

Longer to hit free agency
To get a clearer picture, let's see what this year's free-agency period would have looked like if players needed more than four years of service to reach the open market.

Let's start with the Tennessee Titans. They lost defensive ends Travis LaBoy (Arizona) and Antwan Odom (Cincinnati) as well as guard Jacob Bell (St. Louis). The three players signed for a combined total of $87.5 million ($32 million guaranteed). If the extension on time to free agency was in place, none of these players would have been free. All of them had just four years of service and would have remained Titans for upwards of two more years. The Titans would have probably changed their draft strategy and not gone after defensive linemen Jason Jones or William Hayes and could have taken a receiver or a corner.

Other players that never would have seen a big payday: Michael Turner, who signed a $34.5 million deal ($15 million guaranteed) with Atlanta, would still be LaDainian Tomlinson's backup in San Diego; Gibril Wilson would still be a Giant; D.J. Hackett a Seahawk.

Teams have gotten very smart about the type of players they pay in free agency. They target young players four or five years removed from college that are approaching the big second contract in their careers. That group would be eliminated if teams vote not to continue the current CBA and it gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011.

All you have to do to realize how lean the free agent market will be is go back and look at all the players from the 2005 draft who signed five-year deals, all the players from the 2006 draft who signed four-year deals and even players from the 2007 draft who signed four-year deals. None of these players, under the non-CBA trigger points, would be eligible for unrestricted free agency when their originals contracts expire. Here are some examples of whom it might affect if the owners choose not to continue the current CBA and a new CBA isn't negotiated:

Second-round picks from 2006 such as DeMeco Ryans, D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Thomas Howard, Deuce Lutui, LenDale White, Cedric Griffin, Marcus McNeill, Greg Jennings, and Tarvaris Jackson should be the core of the free-agent market in 2010, but unless they have the ability to "void" their contracts, they will not be free as planned. They would stay with their teams as restricted free agents and it might mean two more years of service before they experience the big payday.

The 2007 draft, especially in the second and third rounds, already has a number of budding stars such as Justin Blalock, Trent Edwards, Eric Wright, James Jones, Tony Ugoh, Samson Satele, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith, David Harris, Zach Miller, LaMarr Woodley, Brandon Mebane, and Arron Sears, to name a few. All are scheduled to be free in 2011, but all would fall short of the five years of service required under the trigger points.

There are at least another 30 to 50 quality young players from later rounds of the '06 and '07 drafts who will not see free agency -- players such as Elvis Dumervil, Willie Colon, Dawan Landry, and Antoine Bethea from 2006, and Marshal Yanda, Kevin Boss, Michael Bush, Cliff Ryan, and Tanard Jackson from '07.

Three tags instead of one
Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.

There is speculation teams would not overuse this trigger because so many of their quality younger players would not be free to depart.

Playoff restrictions
If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.

Time will tell, but I think the NFL and the NFLPA will negotiate a new CBA before we ever get to 2010. I also believe a number of the players looking at the prospect of 2010 and 2011 being uncapped and preventing them from being free agents will try to sign long-term extensions with their teams in the near future.

And don't think all the trigger points favor the clubs, because there are other things -- like the end of the NFL draft in 2011 -- which the league doesn't necessarily want to see. And the emergence of a new league could complicate matters. If the owners decide not to continue the CBA this week, all is not lost. There is time, and there are triggers in place, to get this solved.

nfl.com

I know, I just found it kind of funny.

Quote:

---

Upshaw has been predicting this the last few months and last weekend referred to the owners as “greedy.”

---

LOL Pot meet kettle,,,,

Seriously, I understand the players need to be compenstated well. Thier careers, on average are not very long and in a lot of cases, these guys leave the game with physical issues. Things they gotta live with the rest of thier lives..

And then theres the need to take care of the older players although I don't know if the CBA deals with that at all really.

But on the other side, the owners put up all the money to own and operate a team as well.. And then there are cities that pay though the nose to build stadiums and even some training facilities for teams.

There has got to be some give and take..

What's the old adage on compromise? Both sides end up equally unhappy?

Get a rookie salary cap, but maybe a little bit more revenue to the players than the owners would want in an "ideal" world? Just thinking out loud...

Yeah, I think that's what the old saying is,,;LOL

I like the idea of a Rookie salary Cap.. kinda like the NBA.. don't know if it's possible, but I like it.

Quote:

---

The truth, however, is that there’s no magic to the timing of the opt out. Now that the owners have pulled the plug two years early on the CBA, 2009 will be the last year with a salary cap, and 2010 will have no salary cap, but likewise will have certain specific restrictions applicable to free agency.

---

The league was at this point before, that was the urgency over the last extension to the CBA and why the owners caved to giving 59% to get it done.

Quote:

---

Moving forward, NFL front offices will have to come up with contracts that comply with the 2008 cap rules, the rules of the last capped year in 2009, and the realities of the uncapped year. They’ll also have to account for the presently unknown terms of an extension, if an extension is eventually reached.

In other words, it’s got the potential to be a huge mess for every NFL team, and it likely makes the league more willing to head to the uncapped year in 2010 after they wade through the bigger mess, which will be the last capped year.

---

Some teams had already starting doing this in some ways in anticipation of this happening. The writing was on the wall....believe it or not the Derek Anderson deal was affected by this likelihood.



It's here now folks......I've said many a time what a serious issue this would become, and it's now upon us. We can only hope and pray that they all get their heads out of their collective asses in order to hammer out a deal that will be beneficial to the league as a whole and keep the sport alive and competitive and enjoyable for us as fans.

And for those of you that think this is "okay" just because Lerner has deep pockets need to realize it's not about buying a single championhip or two or three in a meaningless league similar to what baseball has become. Get a clue........the NFL NEEDS a bargaining agreement to keep things on an even keel. It is the best business model of all of the professional sports due to the bargaining agreement PLUS the fact that there is now a Commissioner in charge who will mete out punishment for infractions as should be done.

There are many people on here and around the sports world who as fans hardly ever pay attention to things like this, but guess what? This is IMPORTANT STUFF! This aint Madden on your HD TV playing a damn game with your buddies.....this is real life legal stuff that will affect the league this year and many years to come.......so please stop saying it's okay because MBNA has a lot of money.......it's not just about us so stop being so goddamnded selfish and get a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read it and digest it before you go spouting off of how it will be okay because it benefits the Browns......if they don't fix it the sport will be ruined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I pissed it all away at the track Shane"

Just curious Shep. How did it affect DA's contract? Also, how do you know this? I agree with what you are saying. This is horrible for all of the NFL. I am, however, confident that they will get a deal done.

And now you get to the heart of the matter....team values.

The only way for values to remain high is to have people who can buy them. It is like a house. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay.

Seeing the cost of a team is high, and not many people have a billion dollars sitting around, more and more have to rely of financing....which creates a heavy debt load.

If you have a plan that makes it impossible for new owners to make a profit, you have nothing.

It is like a old golf course I belonged to...the owner finally wanted to sell. The value of the land got to the point a person couldn't buy it and keep it as a golf course...it would be impossible to make any money because of the debt load. The only way to buy the land and make the numbers work was to subdivide it and build houses.

The owners want to preserve where they do make money...franchise value. The only way to do that is to have numbers that work for someone wanting to get into the game.

Resolution remains in best interests of owners, players
By Vic Carucci | NFL.com
Senior Columnist

ATLANTA -- Let's get one thing clear from the start: The NFL sky is not falling.

In simplest terms, what the league's 32 owners decided unanimously Tuesday was to shorten a deal they no longer believed was working for them.

They did not put the immediate future of their game in peril. They did not draw a proverbial line in the sand for the NFL Players Association, looking to instigate the sort of ugly labor fight they've been able to avoid for more than two decades.

What the owners did was arrive at a conclusion that had pretty well been reached long before the NFL Spring Meeting here: That it does not make good business sense to maintain the terms of a six-year extension added to the collective bargaining agreement (originally negotiated in 1993) in March, 2006. So they exercised their right to make 2010 the final season of the extension rather than 2012.

"Any time you make a deal you don't know how it's going to work until you experience it," Commissioner Roger Goodell explained. "We've had two years now of operating under the new deal. Clearly, the economics are not working for the owners. Clearly, we have been investing more in stadiums and the cost of generating that revenue has become more significant.

"And it's no secret what we're going through, from an economic standpoint, creates more risk into the market place. It's not a failure of negotiations. It's a failure of a deal, so let's get to the negotiations."

If nothing else happened between the owners and the NFLPA, three seasons would be played without interruption -- 2008, 2009, and 2010. The 2010 season would not have a salary cap, thus putting new rules in place for free agency and franchise- and transition-tag designations. And a question mark would loom over the 2011 season and beyond.

But something will happen. There will be negotiations. As Goodell promised, another extension deal will be reached "at some point." The goal, as the commissioner pointed out, is to do so with the "least amount of pain and turmoil." Translation: Both sides should keep much of the discussion as possible at the bargaining table and while minimizing the amount of rhetoric for public consumption.

With such an approach, it is reasonable to expect that there won't be an interruption after the 2010 season or in multiple years thereafter.

"It is our responsibility to work out these matters and that is our job, and that's what we're going to be focused on immediately," Goodell said. "We recognize how important it is to continue to have NFL football for our fans. We've had labor peace for several years and we hope to continue that."

By taking the action they took Tuesday, instead of waiting for the Nov. 8 deadline to do so, owners clearly bought valuable time for themselves and for the NFLPA to come to a resolution, either before, during, or after the 2010 season. There is ample opportunity for both sides to engage in constructive dialogue to understand their respective issues and find workable solutions.

The prospect of getting a deal done before allowing a season to go uncapped would seem to provide an incentive to make March, 2010, the beginning of that year's league calendar, a natural negotiating deadline. As Goodell pointed out, owners don't fear the absence of a cap; the 2009 cap already is at a fairly healthy $123 million per team. Still, it would seem to be a good target date to shoot for.

"It's like most issues, deadlines always are helpful," Goodell said. "Anytime you have a deadline, it forces people to understand the consequences of not reaching an agreement."

"Obviously, we'll work hard to try to get something done," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFLPA, said during a conference call with reporters after learning of the owners' decision. "All labor agreements go down to the 13th hour almost, and then you ask for extensions even with that. But that doesn't mean you don't start the process. If you look back to 2006, we started those negotiations in 2004. We met and met and met and met, and we finally got to the part where we felt, 'this was the time to make a deal,' and we did."

The biggest problem with the CBA, from the owners' perspective, is that clubs must spend far more than half of their revenues -- nearly $4.5 billion collectively this year alone -- on player costs. There is no denying, of course, that NFL teams also earn substantial revenues and the league is in good financial health. However, what owners and players must resolve is putting together a CBA that does a better job of recognizing the ever-increasing costs associated with generating maximum revenue as well as the country's soft economic climate. By sticking with the extension as it was structured two years ago, owners would lose incentive to further invest in stadium construction, operations, and improvements to keep pace with fans' interests and demands.

Owners also are looking to change the current system that allows rookies, particularly those taken high in the draft, to be paid much more than established veterans. Jake Long, who has yet to play a single down in the NFL, instantly became the league's highest-paid offensive lineman when he signed a contract (including $30 million in guaranteed money) with the Miami Dolphins as the top overall pick of the 2008 draft.

Negotiations bring their share of saber rattling. They always do. Upshaw used the forum of the conference call to call on NFL owners to disclose audited financial statements "to prove to us that they were really in the dire straits that they're in."

While the owners are willing to provide some financial information to the NFLPA, it is unrealistic -- and I suspect Upshaw understands as much -- to expect them to reveal every business detail of their respective clubs. They never have before, and it is unlikely they will do so now.

"We're not in dire financial straits," Goodell said. "We've never indicated that, we've never stated that. What we are looking for is a fair deal for both sides, the players and the management."

It won't be easy, but with the realization that reaching an agreement is in the best interests of both parties, one would have to be encouraged by the prospects of a resolution within three years. Owners and players have far too much at stake to allow labor difficulties to bring harm to the biggest and best brand in sports.

"It's going to be hard negotiation, there's no question about that," Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney said. "But everything can get done."

"Right now, we're going to play football through 2010 and hopefully beyond that," said Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen. "Hopefully we can come to some fair arrangement during that time."

nfl.com

Now that you mention it, I do remember reading that.

Wealth, glory fail to quell NFL squabbles

Sunday, May 25, 2008
By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



In 1994, when the National Football League instituted a salary cap, the limit was about $35 million. This year, it is $116.7 million. By my math, that's more than a 300 percent increase in 15 years.

Don't we all wish we were so fortunate. Don't we all wish if we were making $500 a week in 1994, we would be making $1,500 a week today. Don't we all wish we worked in a business that is not affected by economic downturns and where the number of jobs never decreases.

It's not just the players who have flourished. It's the owners, too. The salary cap is taken from 59 percent of gross revenue. The 41 percent the owners keep also has increased more than 300 percent. It's possible that profit has not increased at such a level, but, rest assured, it's close.

The NFL is the most popular sport in a sports-crazed society. The public can't get enough, and tickets in most cities are not available. Television can't get enough with games now being shown as often as four days a week. Both union and management should be rejoicing in this glory. Instead, they are squabbling and getting ready for a much bigger fight.

Last week, the NFL voted unanimously -- something it almost never does -- to invoke the opt-out clause of its current contract with the players union. The owners don't think 59 percent of the pie is big enough for them.

Both sides have merit to their arguments.

The players, for example, although making fabulous salaries, have the shortest careers among professional athletes in the four major sports. What's more, their money, beyond signing bonuses, is not guaranteed. A productive player might have four years and $20 million left on a contract, but if he injures his knee or breaks his leg and can no longer play at the same level, he won't get the final years of that deal. By comparison, all the money in a baseball contract is guaranteed.

That being the case, it's easy to see why union head Gene Upshaw, a Hall of Fame player in his day, is reluctant to give back any of the gains his union has won at the collective bargaining table.

Upshaw himself is a distraction, who might best be removed from this drama. In some circles, he's viewed as a weak leader who is too much in the pocket of NFL management and ownership. In other circles, he's viewed as a pawn of the powerful agents. Proof of that is Upshaw is not pushing for a rookie salary cap. It would make sense if he did, since a cap would mean more money in the pockets of the veteran players, who are the men he works for. But a rookie salary cap also would take money out of the pocket of the agents by cutting way down on fabulous signing bonuses. Upshaw is seen as reluctant to cross the agents, which is why some players are trying to push him out.

The owners, for the most part, are men of fabulous wealth, which means they didn't get that way by negotiating soft contracts and not demanding the biggest piece of the pie they could get. Nor are they concerned about the threat of 2010 being an uncapped season, which some see as driving them toward an agreement -- any agreement.

An uncapped season conjures up visions of owners gone wild and doling out fabulous salaries to every available free agent. Actually, the uncapped year is considerably more owner-friendly. Remember, these guys don't usually negotiate stupid deals.

Here are some of the rules for the uncapped year:

• To become a free agent, six years of service time -- not the usual four -- are required.

• The eight teams with the best records in 2009 would be prevented from signing free agents unless they lost free agents to other teams.

• Every team would have two transition tags, instead of one, which would mean they could prevent three players from leaving -- two by transition tags and one by the franchise tag.

• With no cap, there also is no floor. Teams that might otherwise be forced to have a payroll of about $80 million under the old system could have a payroll of $40 million -- or less.

What does all this mean?

It means the current maneuvers are nothing but posturing for better position when the talks get serious. And they will. And when they do, as always, wiser heads will prevail.

When the value of your product and the amount of your salary is increasing by amounts that would make a common man drool, you don't take time off.

Bob Smizik can be reached at bsmizik@post-gazette.com.

thats the one that got my attention as well. I think that would help prevent a top 8 team from spending huge money on that one last piece of the puzzle.

But in the end, no CBA opens things up for a Jerry Jones' to dump huge money on players. It sets up a baseball scenario where the Bostons and NY's can go crazy spending and the small markets suffer.

It's to prevent the "Steinbrenner Effect".

Time for an unpopular post. Maybe a devil's advocate kind of post that begs the question. Here goes!

So what? Pro sports are showcased by the NFL which sets the bar, at least arguably, for some of the sweetest pay-for-play sports deals out there. And the two sides, were I arbitrating or mediating, have lost track of something if it ever was honestly part of either party on the two sides' makeup, and that was a sense of advocacy for the Fan. This industry has become bloated with crazy money; more money, IMO, has cost the game, the players, the clubs, and especially the Fan. This "decision" epitomizes the picture perfectly: Two spoiled brats wrestling furiously in a sandbox filled with fabulous toys. Neither can own the entire sandbox, each has caused the toys' presence, neither can play with more than one toy at a time. Yet they fight endlessly, bitter and determined in their own right by their own lights. The idea of sharing the toys with a third party is totally out of the question, with each other the same status, while the wrestling and the paybacks are considered vital. Wrestling trumps resolution, you see.
We have unholy amounts of salary paid to more and more marginal players; we are fighting over dollars aplenty for owners and players and executives, but there is never enough pie for these hungers. As someone who retired on a fairly humble pension, I have trouble seeing the difference in earning astronomical amounts. The day to day difference of say $6M instead of $7M is wasted on me. Logic would indicate that there is some limit financially on any pro game, and much of that limit is based on loyalty. But when resentment against overpriced beer, concessions, PSL, tickets, and clothing gear become too great, there may be fewer toys, a smaller sandbox, and perhaps a realization that the energy of the opponents might have been spent better.
Iremember the last strike ball of the NFL. IF you saw The Replacements, it was kind of like that, only worse by far. I don't want it. And if it happens, it is the petty brats in a sandbox that will engineer it. As a fan, I have paid my money in good faith up front, and done so for at least 40 years; I want this resolved, and some leniency for ALL parties to be part of the upcoming agreement. Play ball!

Here's a little blurb about the most and least prepared teams for an uncapped season. They have the Browns listed as prepared. Hey, it's something to read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=3415387

Without cap, Cowboys, Chargers can still strut

By John Clayton
ESPN.com

Unless the NFL and the NFL Players Association reach a new extension of the collective bargaining agreement, an uncapped year for team salaries will hit the league in 2010.

Restrictions will apply in this uncapped year. Teams will be given an extra transition tag to go with their one franchise player designation to help them keep two of their top free agents. The best teams won't be allowed to jump into free agency.

The four teams that participate in the conference championship games will not be able to sign an unrestricted free agent until they lose a player in free agency. If those teams lose a player, they can enter the market to find a replacement. There are further limitations on the next four postseason teams, those that participate in the divisional playoff round.

The biggest change would be the time it takes to become a free agent. Under the current salary cap, a player can become an unrestricted free agent after four seasons accrued. In 2010, that time frame would increase to six seasons, mainly allowing players drafted in 2004 or earlier to enter the market freely. Unsigned players without six years in the league would be restricted free agents.

Which teams would be affected most if the league can't get a new labor deal before 2010?

Teams prepared to weather the uncapped storm

1. San Diego Chargers: The Chargers have done one of the best jobs of locking up starters in case of an uncapped year. The core group of the team is still young. San Diego has multiple starters who have been to the Pro Bowl and only four would qualify for free agency in 2010 -- guard Mike Goff, quarterback Philip Rivers, wide receiver Chris Chambers and defensive end Igor Olshansky. As long as he comes back successfully from knee reconstruction, Rivers won't be allowed to hit the market. His contract runs out after the 2009 season, and clearly the Chargers will either sign him to a long-term deal or, in the worst-case scenario, franchise him. The Chargers believe they have at least a two-year window to win a Super Bowl. An uncapped year in 2010 won't affect that window.

2. Dallas Cowboys: Gene Upshaw, head of the NFLPA, reminded reporters last week that Jerry Jones locked up starters from his three-time Super Bowl-winning team during the last uncapped year, which happened in 1993. Jones is trying to do the same thing in anticipation of an uncapped 2010 season. Last week, he signed halfback Marion Barber and cornerback Terence Newman to long-term deals. With a new billion-dollar stadium, Jones will have the money to keep his key players.

Overall, the Cowboys have 13 players who have been to the Pro Bowl among the starters. Jones does have some work to do. The contracts of four starters -- wide receiver Terrell Owens, safety Ken Hamlin, right tackle Marc Colombo and linebacker Zach Thomas -- are up after this season. Defensive end Chris Canty is different from the previously mentioned four starters because he won't have six years in the league in 2010 and thus won't be a free agent then. Linebacker Greg Ellis will be a free agent in 2010 but he also will be 34 at that time.

3. Cleveland Browns: Thanks to the aggressive moves of general manager Phil Savage, the Browns should be set to weather the uncapped storm after picking up Shaun Rogers, Corey Williams and Donte' Stallworth this offseason.

Only four starters could be free agents in 2010, and the Browns should be able to keep most of them. One free agent is linebacker Willie McGinest, who plans to retire after the 2008 season. Safety Sean Jones and linebacker Andra Davis will be free agents after this season and would have enough years to qualify for free agency in 2010. Guard Rex Hadnot signed a two-year deal to join the Browns this season, and his contract would be up in 2010.

4. Philadelphia Eagles: The forward-thinking Eagles have worried about the uncapped year for some time and started signing long-term deals with top young players several years ago. As a result, they are tied with the Cowboys, Jaguars and Jets for the league lead in signed starters in 2010 (15). They have only four starters up in 2010 and they have four players who will be free agents after the 2008 season: tackles Jon Runyan and Tra Thomas, safety Brian Dawkins and tight end L.J. Smith. Thomas (33) and Runyon (34) could be in their final seasons with the Eagles. If Thomas isn't re-signed after the season, Andy Reid could move Shawn Andrews from guard to left tackle. Dawkins is 34. Smith could be re-signed after this season if he has a good year as a red zone target.

5. Indianapolis Colts: The Colts will stay in contention as long as Peyton Manning is around, and there is no reason to think there will be any drop-off in his game by 2010, when he will be 34. On defense, only middle linebacker Gary Brackett would have enough years in the league to qualify for free agency in 2010. The only other starter of concern is center Jeff Saturday, who's in the final year of his contract. Saturday is 32, but it's not out of the question for the team to prevent him from hitting free agency after this season.

Teams with concerns for the 2010 uncapped year

1. New England Patriots As well-prepared as the Patriots are for almost anything, they do have to worry about an uncapped year. Tom Brady is signed through 2010, so they don't have to worry about him yet. Nor are the next two seasons cause for concern. They would have 19 of the 22 starters locked up for next season if linebacker Jerod Mayo wins a starting job as a rookie.

However, several players could qualify for free agency in 2010. Hardest hit could be New England's defense. Defensive linemen Richard Seymour, Jarvis Green and Vince Wilfork are up in 2010, as are linebackers Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi.

Safety Rodney Harrison is in the last year of his contract.

The Patriots have one of the oldest starting defenses in football and it might be hard to find a lot of replacements in a limited free-agent market over the next two seasons. On offense, tight end Ben Watson could hit free agency in 2010. Guard Steve Neal is a free agent after this season.

2. Denver Broncos: Mike Shanahan is paying the price for relying too much on free agency and trades and not doing as well in the draft. The Broncos' biggest problem isn't which players they lose. Their biggest problem is finding replacements, particularly for a defense that is still one of the oldest starting units in football. They have 11 starters under contract in 2010. Linebacker D.J. Williams, perhaps their best young defender, is a free agent after this season. Safeties John Lynch and Marlon McCree are free agents after this season.

Defensive end John Engelberger is free in 2010, when he will be 33. On offense, Tom Nalen is 37 and entering the final year of his contract. This is a roster that is in transition, which is not good as the uncapped year approaches.

3. Detroit Lions: Teams with older starting quarterbacks could be in trouble in the next couple of years because no top quarterback will hit the free-agent market. Jon Kitna will be 37 and unsigned in 2010 and the Lions have done very little to find their long-term starter. Drew Stanton is the best hope for the future.

The first big decision for Detroit involves wide receiver Roy Williams, who will be a free agent after this season. Williams could be asking for top receiver money, which could be around $10 million a year. The Lions could franchise him next year, but that doesn't answer the 2010 question. Kitna, center Dominic Raiola, guard Edwin Mulitalo, safety Dwight Smith, linebackers Paris Lenon and Alex Lewis and halfback Tatum Bell are among the starters whose contracts are up over the next couple of years. The challenge facing the Lions is not so much whom they could lose as it is finding starters for the future.

4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The Bucs also have to look long term at quarterback. Jeff Garcia is 38. Jon Gruden must figure out the long-term solution before 2010. Because the Bucs love veteran-laden teams, plenty of contracts come due over the next few years. Seven starters are under contract in 2010, including cornerback Ronde Barber, who will be 35 that year. Tackle Luke Petitgout, linebackers Derrick Brooks and Cato June, wide receivers Joey Galloway and Ike Hilliard and cornerback Phillip Buchanon are signed only through 2009.

5. Washington Redskins: The Redskins are in great shape for the next two seasons, but 2010 could be tough. Eleven of their 22 starters are in their 30s, including five starters on the offensive line. Age is also creeping up on their defense. Cornerback Shawn Springs is 33. Linebacker Marcus Washington is 30. Defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin is 31. Linebacker London Fletcher is 33. Defensive end Phillip Daniels is 35.

With more teams preparing for the chance of an uncapped year, finding replacements for older starters becomes harder and harder. The Redskins soon will have to prepare to replace the entire offensive line and five older starters on defense.

John Clayton, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame writers' wing, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Thanks for posting Brownaholic. That's an excellent read on how the CBA will impact this team in 2010 when or should an uncapped year happen.

I appreciate the post.

Perhaps the best signing is adding Savage for another 3 years.