[Erunsenef]

Because veterans start higher up the pay scale, thanks to arbitration. Arbitration drives up the pay scale across the board.

Under the cap, minimum salary veterans make more than minimum salary rookies. Is it not parallel?

[CFstantony]

While the team salary has no bottom, there are still minimum salaries for the players.

http://www.redskins.com/gen/articles...ear_101621.jsp

Gotcha. I misunderstood there, and admittedly pay little or no attention to salary and contract issues for Professional Athletes.
Carry On, CBA Wonks.

[Gerribase]

Under the cap, minimum salary veterans make more than minimum salary rookies. Is it not parallel?

My point was that the union doesn't want a slotting system because it will put downward pressure on rookie salaries, and a lower starting point leads to lower salaries down the road.

[Ambassador]

My point was that the union doesn't want a slotting system because it will put downward pressure on rookie salaries, and a lower starting point leads to lower salaries down the road.

I'd disagree, as that view only really impacts 10-20 people per season, though perhaps the attrition rate could complicate things.

If the rookie slots were only for 2 years, then they were eligible for free agency...

[Ikrleprl]

let the crazy shit began no cap babyyy

[BrainTop]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

Has the NFL agreed to open the books? You can cry poor all you want, but until you open the books, how the hell are is the union supposed to agree to anything?

The union doesn't want teams to fold.

[Intory]

I disagree. A veteran is going to be comparing his contract to what a rook is getting - Stafford, 24 mil signing bonus? You better make sure that Peyton gets more.

The players aren't going to worry about rookie salaries - those will work themselves out. Those are 'prospective' members of the union, not union members yet - so contesting that point is merely a hook to use to get something else they want - like cutting the time for free agency qualification, or eliminating the franchise tags - or, like they did in 08, reducing the cap charge for minimum salary veterans.

Bingo! They said as much in the interview last night. Somebody here said a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. That's what the players feel the rookie contracts do to future negotiations for veteran players. I think it is something the players will ultimately have to give on. If they allow a lockout on that issue they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Ternneowns]

Bingo! They said as much in the interview last night. Somebody here said a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. That's what the players feel the rookie contracts do to future negotiations for veteran players. I think it is something the players will ultimately have to give on. If they allow a lockout on that issue they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I agree that they look at that. However, there's plenty of comparables elsewhere, and sacrificing a couple of rookies from making ridiculous deals makes the most sense.

It's not a hill to die on.

But the agents are going to be apoplectic about it.

[LottiFurmann]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

Has the NFL agreed to open the books? You can cry poor all you want, but until you open the books, how the hell are is the union supposed to agree to anything?

The union doesn't want teams to fold.

Owners aren't making enough money. Right.

[medprof]

Owners aren't making enough money. Right.

I could believe that several owners are making large sums, and some are making very little.

Open the books, and prove it.

[caseferter]

Rookies and second year players make in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars in a setup system prior to reaching arbitration years. This does not lower veteran salaries.

Apples and oranges. The system that is built into the NFL is the signing bonuses. Salary is almost ancillary because it is not guaranteed. As a result, the gargantuan signing bonuses that NFL rookies get has a direct effect on veterans' contracts.

[Arkadiyas]

I could believe that several owners are making large sums, and some are making very little.

Open the books, and prove it.

The only ones that are available are the Packers because they are a publicly traded company. They made 20 million in profit in 2008. The owners say the average is 31 million, with some dangerously close to breaking even.
I'm sure that they have their own particularly creative way of coming up with their numbers. And one thing that is never in any equation is the escalating value of the franchises.

[evennyNiz]

I could believe that several owners are making large sums, and some are making very little.

Open the books, and prove it.

It's not that I don't believe profits aren't equal. It's just that the owners actually have the balls to cry poor when the NFL is the largest and most successful entertainment industry in this hemisphere.

What's worse is that some fans actually believe this line of bull. They believe the owners' position that player salaries are choking the business. Not that this is anything new. I recently read Roger Angell's Late Innings book. He could have been describing commenters of the article you posted, when he described fans during the MLB labor disputes of 1977-81.

[southernplayer99]

The only ones that are available are the Packers because they are a publicly traded company. They made 20 million in profit in 2008. The owners say the average is 31 million, with some dangerously close to breaking even.
I'm sure that they have their own particularly creative way of coming up with their numbers. And one thing that is never in any equation is the escalating value of the franchises.

I wouldn't include the value of the franchises, though.

Does it matter that the Redskins are worth a billion dollars, if they can't earn enough to cover payroll?

But you can't cry poor and hide your books, that's all I'm saying. Of course, that does open up the NFL franchises to questions about revenue sharing, and how extensive it really ought to be.... but nobody wins if a franchise can't earn enough of a profit. There has to be reasonable profit built into the system.

[foodselfdourileka]

I think the NFL realizes it has a good thing going and will get something resolved before a lockout happens.

It would be suicide to take it to that measures in this type of economic climate.

The NHL is still trying to recover from their lockout and if it wasnt for steroids who knows if baseball would have ever made it back.

[ARKLqAZ6]

if there is no football in 2011 I will advocate the killing of the NFLPA members.

[mr.videomen]

I think the NFL realizes it has a good thing going and will get something resolved before a lockout happens.

It would be suicide to take it to that measures in this type of economic climate.

The NHL is still trying to recover from their lockout and if it wasnt for steroids who knows if baseball would have ever made it back.

Well, the top franchises (from an earnings perspective) can easily weather the storm of a lockout season.

The bottom feeders... I don't know if they can. Not well, certainly.

Makes me wonder if this is a mechanism to force out some of the less value-adding owners... get them to sell, have guys who are a little more hard-core about marketing and maximizing value....

[gueremaisse]

Gary Bettman applauds the NFL

[bjacogaerllyo]

Well, the top franchises (from an earnings perspective) can easily weather the storm of a lockout season.

The bottom feeders... I don't know if they can. Not well, certainly.

Makes me wonder if this is a mechanism to force out some of the less value-adding owners... get them to sell, have guys who are a little more hard-core about marketing and maximizing value....

There are enough incompetent ownerships in the league who struggle making money, and those clowns would welcome a lockout. They will still get the TV revenue in the event of a lockout and they can just put their operations in 'sleep' mode and count the money. The bottom feeders are actually the ones who will benefit more.
That crowd is so cheap that they had to let the Players Association bring suit to keep revenue sharing as is during an uncapped year, even though they had the most to lose.

[Nppracph]

to my knowledge only the seahawks lost money last year