Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    PackSux!'s Avatar
    PackSux! is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,553

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    Man i cant even wait these last 16 days until free agency, waiting till april will drive me nuts.

  2. #12
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    That settlement was presented to and approved by the judge who had heard the McNeil antitrust case in 1993. Once the agreement was approved the NFLPA reconstituted itself as a labor union and entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the league. The NFLPA and the league have extended their 1993 agreement four times, most recently through the 2007 season; there is no salary cap in that last year. Negotiations are underway to extend it through 2011.


    This is the reason you have guys like Ray Lewis wanting more money, this is why you have Shaun Alexander asking what he is.

    The rumor is the cap will be increased to about 102 million, it was somewhere around 80. This deal will get done, the alternative will lose a lot of people a lot of money.

    It's just a reminder to us that the game at this level is aboit getting paid. Ray Lewis may not want out of Baltimore, he just knows that the pie is getting bigger in the next few months and he wants his piece to increase with it.

  3. #13
    Prophet Guest

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    POSTED 8:40 a.m. EST, February 15, 2006
    CBA UNCERTAINTY COULD SCREW UP FREE AGENCY
    Mike Florio

    There has been talk of possibly bumping the start of the 2006 free agency period from March 3 to April 1, and for good reason. As the NFL and the NFLPA continue to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, both sides are beginning to realize that free agency conducted in 2006, the last year prior to the uncapped year of 2007, could be a nightmare for everyone.

    The two biggest impediments are the rules regarding incentives and the so-called "30 percent rule." For incentives, any amounts achieved in 2006 automatically hit the salary cap in 2006, and cannot be nudged into 2007. Thus, teams using incentives for players like Terrell Owens, who might need a big, fat carrot in order to achieve his highest level of performance, could find themselves having to dump players later in the year as certain incentives are reached.

    The more confusing issue -- and one on which we've seen very little elaboration -- is the 30 percent rule. This means that a player's "Salary" (i.e., everything except signing bonus) cannot increase by more than 30 percent from the last capped year of the CBA (i.e., 2006) into the uncapped year (i.e., 2007) and any future years.

    So if a player signs, for example, a four-year contract with a $1 million signing bonus and a base salary of $550,000 in 2006, the player's compensation in 2007 can be no more than $715,000 -- including base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus, etc. The 2008 maximum compensation is then $929,500. And so on.

    The problem is that, if/when the CBA is extended, a different system will be in place, which undoubtedly will allow for greater increases from year to year. The biggest losers here are the players who sign free agent deals before the CBA is extended, since the existence of a salary cap in 2006 will limit the baseline from which future salaries can expand. The teams also will have problems in this regard, since anyone who signs a deal before the CBA extension undoubtedly will be clamoring for a new contract if/when a new CBA is in place.

    So even if the league and the union don't agree to pause the start of free agency pending further discussions, the smart move for the high end free agents very well might be to refrain from signing a contract until the CBA is extended. Although this might cause some players to miss out on the big money that usually flows in the first few days of free agency, we've got a feeling that the big money simply won't be there this year -- unless and until the teams have sufficient certainty regarding the future of the CBA.

    Another possible strategy for a high-end free agent who wants to sign in early March and doesn't want to wait for the CBA extension would be to negotiate a one-year contract with an agreement that he won't be subject to the franchise or transition tag upon expiration. This will allow the player to hit the open market in 2007 -- and if the CBA isn't extended by then, there will be no salary cap to limit his next contract. (Assuming, of course, that he will have six years of service come 2007, since players with five years or less are not eligible for unrestricted free agency in the uncapped year.)

    Confused? So are we. The bottom line here is that both sides need to work together to get the CBA done. Now. Since 1993, the threat of an uncapped year has been used to get the parties to work out a new contract at least a year before the current deal expires. Because the CBA never has come so close to hitting the uncapped year, both sides are gradually beginning to understand that the presence of the uncapped year is an incentive to get the new deal done not one year early, but two.

    OPTION BONUSES GO BYE-BYE, TOO

    Another complication of the looming uncapped year is that teams won't be able to use so-called option bonuses in order to reduce the cap hit resulting from the first year of a player's contract. In previous years, the player's signing bonus often would be split into two accrual dates -- one as of the date on which the contract is executed and another early in the following league year. Thus, the cap charge in the first year would reflect only the proration of the actual signing bonus, along with any other compensation paid that year. Then, in the next year, the proration for the option bonus would begin to hit the cap.

    Based on a memo circulated by the NFLPA regarding the uncapped year, any fully guaranteed payments in 2007 or beyond are treated as a 2006 signing bonus. Likewise, any "off-season roster bonus" or "off-season reporting bonus" or "off-season workout bonus" paid in 2007 is treated as a 2006 signing bonus. However, it's presently unclear whether a non-guaranteed option bonus due in 2007 will count as a signing bonus in 2006.

    Even if a 2007 option bonus isn't part of the 2006 signing bonus calculation, the broad definition of "Salary" contained in the CBA means that any option bonus paid in 2007 or beyond will fall within the scope of the 30 percent rule. Thus, it will be impossible -- absent a multi-million-dollar base salary in 2006 -- for a team to push a multi-million-dollar option bonus in 2007.

    This glitch will wreak the most havoc on the signing of draft picks at the top of round one. The rookie pool limits the total amount of money that can be spent under the 2006 cap on draft picks. For the folks who get those big cash bonanzas, devices such as option bonuses and so-called "not likely to be earned" incentives based on minimal play time apparently won't be available in 2006 when the time comes to circumvent the rookie pool.

    As a result, it will be even harder to negotiate contracts that secure for the first few picks in the draft the kind of windfall that they are accustomed to receiving. And unless someone comes up with a way to squeeze those millions within the year one rookie pool, the windfalls simply might not be there in 2006.

  4. #14
    collegeguyjeff's Avatar
    collegeguyjeff is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,304

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    dang this would hurt us for trading pepper
    I don t buy Wisconsin cheese.

  5. #15
    renovikesfan is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    772

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    Ohhh, boy. If it gets pushed back to April 1st, Webby's going to need to devote an entire section to April Fool's posts about false signings. LOL

  6. #16
    NordicNed is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    "renovikesfan" wrote:
    Ohhh, boy. If it gets pushed back to April 1st, Webby's going to need to devote an entire section to April Fool's posts about false signings. LOL
    I hear you Reno,


    Hell, the Vikings called me last night, their thinking about trying me out as kicker.....They said they will call me the night before the 1st of April.....Stay Tuned :grin:


    I LOVE THE SMELL OF VICTORY IN THE MORNING AIR.

  7. #17
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,216

    Re: Free Agency Could Be Dalayed Until April

    From KFFL;

    NFL | May be no need to push free agency back
    Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:17:36 -0800

    Mark Maske, of the Washington Post, reports, as noted previously, the start of NFL free agency could be pushed back from March 3 to April 1 if there is sufficient progress in labor negotiations to warrant such a delay, according to sources around the league. The problem is there has been no progress in labor talks.

    One participant in the labor negotiations said Tuesday, Feb. 14, that there's no need at this point to contemplate pushing back free agency because there's no sign yet that a few extra weeks would produce a deal.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. 2008 Remaining Unrestricted Free Agents (2 April)
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 07:37 AM
  2. FREE AGENCY OVER?
    By bigbadragz in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 05:59 PM
  3. Free agency
    By ThunderingLlama in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-03-2005, 04:47 PM
  4. Free Agency
    By nzviking in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-06-2003, 06:48 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •