NLFPA Sends Memo Preparing Agents for Uncapped Year

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 (http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2010/02/smith-union-will-monitor-teams-free-agent-spending.html#more)
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.

^^ 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.

^^ 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.

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.

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.

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.Most importantly shed contracts that are cap killers. With Samuels, Randy Thomas, ARE, Andre Carter, Moss and Landry contract structures, release or trade was basically an impossibility (not sure how Samuels or Thomas' retirement would've affected the cap tho). Not sure of the guarantees or new structure of Portis' contract but it opens up options with him also. This uncapped year allows us to clean up some of the contractual messes that could've eventually put us in cap hell (if the cap returns).

Not to mention, being the # 1 or #2 revenue team in the NFL we can win a bidding war for a most UFAs if need be.

Definitely a great chance to shed those overpriced aging vets.

You can't go totally buck wild signing free agents though, teams are setting self imposed caps in order to account for the cap if/when it comes back.

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.

thats what i am not sure about either but my take on it is that the NFLPA back when this deal was struck in 93 (?) made a provision for the uncapped year to protect against cheap low rev teams from not spending any money on players (in the uncapped year = no floor) by forcing high rev teams to give to the low rev teams so that low rev teams couldnt say they didnt have the money.

Definitely a great chance to shed those overpriced aging vets.

You can't go totally buck wild signing free agents though, teams are setting self imposed caps in order to account for the cap if/when it comes back.

That's why I'm so happy we have some intelligent people running the ship now.

A lot of people are saying this really isn't going to be about owners vs. players. It's more owners vs. owners, high rev vs. low rev