Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: VIDEO: The Daily Show Talks Jeremy Lin

NFL Fact Sheet: 2010 and the Uncapped Year

The NFL released a fact sheet the other day with questions and answers about free-agency, the labor agreement and other important items surrounding the end of the collective bargaining agreement. I'll leave it to the capologists and contract experts in the community to sort it all out.

Q. When does the CBA expire should there be no extension to the agreement?

A. In March of 2011.

Q. Will there be a college draft in 2011?

A. Yes.

More...

Star-divide

Q. What is the "Final League Year" in the current agreement?

A. The "Final League Year" is the term used in the CBA to refer to the last year of the agreement. Without a further extension of the CBA, the "Final League Year" would be the 2010 League Year, which begins on March 5.

Q. What are the differences between the "Final League Year" and any other "League Year?"

A. The principal differences are that in the "Final League Year" there is no salary cap and there are substantial additional restrictions on player free agency and reductions in player benefits.

Q. Are current player benefits affected in the Final League Year?

A. We expect current player benefits to decline in the Final League Year. The union agreed that in the Final League Year, clubs would be relieved of their obligation to fund numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, severance pay and performance-based pay. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, were in excess of $325 million or more than $10 million per club.

Q. Are retired player benefits affected in the Final League Year?

A. Commissioner Goodell has stated in a letter to the NFL Alumni Association Board of Directors that there will be no reduction in pension or disability payments to retired players during the Final League Year (2010). Since at least the fall of 2007, NFL owners have consistently agreed and planned that they will not reduce the funding for pension or disability benefits for retired players. Nor will they reduce funding for the 88 Plan during the Final League Year.

Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent in the Final League Year (2010)?

A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent if he has four or more accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent only if he has six or more accrued seasons. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any club with no compensation owed to his old club.

Q. What determines whether a player is a restricted free agent in the "Final League Year?"

A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three, four or five accrued seasons. The first refusal/compensation rights of restricted free agents remain unchanged in the Final League Year.

Q. In addition to the right to designate a franchise (or transition) player each capped year, can clubs designate additional players in the Final League Year?

A. Yes, one additional player can be tagged. In capped years, a club may designate a franchise player or a transition player. In the final league year (2010), a club may designate one additional transition player. A transition player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s position or 120 percent of the player’s prior year’s salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no draft pick compensation from that club.

Q. What is the Final Eight Plan?

A. During the Final League Year, the eight clubs that make the Divisional Playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign unrestricted free agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the championship games are limited in the number of free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. They cannot sign any UFAs unless one of theirs is signed by another team.

For the four clubs that lost in the Divisional Playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign free agents based on the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters. Those four only will be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $5.5 million (estimated) or more in year one of the contract, plus the number of their UFAs who sign with another team. They also can sign any unrestricted free agents for less than $3.7 (estimated) million in year one of the contract with limitations on the per year increases.

In the case of all final eight teams, the first year salary of UFAs they sign to replace those lost cannot exceed the first year salary of the player lost with limitations on the per year increases.

Q. Is there an Entering Player Pool in the Final League Year?

A. There may be. The CBA provides that the league has the unilateral right to keep or eliminate the rookie pool in the Final League Year.

Q. Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year?

A. There is no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year. The Minimum Team Salary in 2009 is $107,748,000, meaning each team is required to allocate more than $107 million to player costs (not including benefits). The team salary cap in 2009 was $123 million.

Q. Are there individual player minimum salaries in the Final League Year?

A. Yes, but they rise at a rate somewhat slower than player minimum salaries rise in capped years.

Q. Do any player contract rules from capped years remain in place for the Final League Year?

A. Yes, some rules like the "30% increase rule" are still in effect in the Final League Year for player contracts signed in capped years. That rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500,000 salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

Comment 112 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Players Are Getting Short End of Stick

No payment to retirement accounts; more restrictions on movement by players; and the story is the NFL wants a near 20 percent reduction in the salary pool . . . bet a strike is coming.

by Iowacowboy on Jan 23, 2010 1:07 PM CST reply actions  

Its part of a deal signed by both sides so its a stick they chose

I don’t think I feel sorry for the players. Don’t feel too sorry for the owners either. I’d get rid of the NFLPA (Union) and the salary cap (Collusion) and let the free market dictate everything. The market will dictate what salaries are justified and the owners will have to pay it to stay competitive, which is key to making money. I know, that’s the OLD American way.

by Kansas Cowboy on Jan 23, 2010 1:15 PM CST up reply actions  

mm no

Quite a few teams will go under and teams like Dallas, Washington, Oakland and a few others will dominate. It will become baseball. I love the competitive balance and parity involved in football and if they want to continue to be the most popular sport in america, they can’t get rid of the cap.

by foyesboys on Jan 23, 2010 3:34 PM CST up reply actions  

agree

the balance goes out the window if franchises are allowed to “spend” as much as they want because they make more in the more wealthier of cities

i want the cowboys to do well, but not like that. i dont want them to be the yankees

Into video games? Check out GamersBeyond.com for reviews/vids on latest video games from all platforms (PC, PS3, xbox, Wii)

by fuji1232 on Jan 23, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions  

One year is not going to change that much

The 2011 CB will define how things will go forward

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 5:32 PM CST up reply actions  

I mean before free agency there wasn't as much parity as there is now

and with free agency and no cap you would go back to a time when the disparity was greater

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 6:14 PM CST up reply actions  

i disagree

read moneyball, there are other ways. also this league is much more about the draft than baseball. think about the best players in the league, aside from the QBs, many do not bank as much as you think. For example: deshawn jackson, chris johnson, darnell revis, the list goes on.

by Becho on Jan 23, 2010 5:15 PM CST up reply actions  

here is an article disscussing parity myths regarding the NFL

The parity myth

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070123

what this article does not mention is that there have been more World Series winning teams (8) this decade than there have been Super Bowl winners (6). Playoff trends are similar. So all this talk of the MLB not having as much competitive balance may be overblown.

by Becho on Jan 24, 2010 12:48 AM CST up reply actions  

The league hasn't used a "free market" model in quite some time.

Revenue sharing, salary caps, slotted draft contracts, etc.

"We'll see." --Bill Parcells

by Uncle Angus on Jan 23, 2010 5:10 PM CST up reply actions  

the owners would never have that

this is all about the owners doing their best to make more money

by Becho on Jan 23, 2010 5:12 PM CST up reply actions  

but its deeper than owners being greedy

Owners are responsible for building and maintaining stadiums, among other things. Players are responsible for their bodies and their talent. Owners should have more of the pie, because without them, there wouldn’t be an oven

by mahuebel on Jan 23, 2010 8:23 PM CST up reply actions  

i agree it aint that simple but ....

if the owners truly have a leg to stand on why dont they release their books. if i saw evidence that owners needed more money then i would jump sides but they refuse to disclose the economic proof. if they are struggling then show us why, what do they have to hide.

by Becho on Jan 24, 2010 12:22 AM CST up reply actions  

The "free market" would be an awful solution

a few teams revenues would go up but the league as a whole would lose a lot more money, because a lot of teams wouldn’t be able to compete, and it would take the competitive nature out of the sport, and you would end up with the MLB.

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions  

It sounds good on the surface, but if that were true we wouldn't have the Detroit Lions

or the St Louis Rams. This parity BS is just that. It is about management of your team and luck with your players. If there were true parity in the NFL then the SuperBowl winner would have at best a 10-6 record, because they had a couple of lucky bounces in games.

Texas: Where God goes to relax.
Unless he's watching the Cowboys.

by GunsUp on Jan 25, 2010 6:22 AM CST up reply actions  

It will most likely

be a lockout by the owners. The players have said they will not strike.

by jevans1729 on Jan 23, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions  

It was designed to hurt both sides.

They set up the system to create an incentive for both sides to come to an agreement before the deal expired.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jan 23, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Which system is more convoluted, the NFL's or the NBA's?

I somewhat understand what happens with the NFL system. I’m completely clueless on the NBA’s.

by Athos on Jan 23, 2010 1:16 PM CST reply actions  

i already miss football :(

by DavidLaFleur on Jan 23, 2010 1:37 PM CST reply actions  

+1

You'll never get in a traffic jam,while going the extra mile. -Roger staubach

by TrueBlue24 on Jan 23, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions  

In 2010, it will not affect the fans much

If they lock out in 2011, that is another matter.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, your right Trey about 2011 being the potential disaster for all of us fans..

Be we’all been getting screwed for years..over both Owners and Players greed..We buy everything for them..I wrote a rant out on my site about this so I’ll refrain from doing it here on your site.. y’all can go read it if you want, but I’ll just stop here by saying we can’t even take our kids to watch a sport we love without spending a damn fortune..We pay the players, the owners, we buy their stadiums, and then we sit there like fools after dropping a grand, to eat a godamn Nathans hot dog and a watered down beer for 25 bucks..and it is about the same to get your kids a soda and hot-dog (each)..That CBA shit sounds worse than anything the IRS has ever issued..Now I, as ya’ll have worked our butts off to get by and try to do something for our families to enjoy….Well I’ll stop..just get ready to bend over and grab your ankles again..

by Bobbiblue on Jan 23, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Nobody forces you

I don’t buy merchandise, jerseys or any of that crap-and have never been to an NFL game-
If I did, it’d be my choice to be bending over and taking it as I shell out $8 for a beer or a hotdog.

The games are on TV, you have to pay for that sometimes but mostly it’s still free-what’s to complain about?

Just don’t buy the stuff or tickets!
And if you do, it’s your choice, so don’t whine.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 23, 2010 5:25 PM CST up reply actions  

posting error here

don’t know why it went in twice

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 24, 2010 1:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Nobody forces you

I don’t buy merchandise, jerseys or any of that crap-and have never been to an NFL game-
If I did, it’d be my choice to be bending over and taking it as I shell out $8 for a beer or a hotdog.

The games are on TV, you have to pay for that sometimes but mostly it’s still free-what’s to complain about?

Just don’t buy the stuff or tickets!
And if you do, it’s your choice, so don’t whine.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 23, 2010 5:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Geez Realist..certainly didn't mean to rub you the wrong way here..Maybe you don't

have five boys you’d like to take to a game..Sorry to mess up your day..but I am just making a comment here and stating my honest opinion that professional sports is ripping us all off, regardless of who we root for..

by Bobbiblue on Jan 23, 2010 6:51 PM CST up reply actions  

...And I'll add this..Nobody has ever callled me a "Whiner"

Now Son..I flew into Bagdad in ‘91 and blew a shit-load of people up in an F-117A..My call sign was changed to “01”..I blew up their At&t building and their Air force Command headquarters..and they are documentend on TV..the discovery channel…So I really don’t care what you have to say..Most of these folks out here like me to visit..I am at the point in my life where I just want to give my boys a little fun without having to pay through the roof for it…So shove it.

by Bobbiblue on Jan 23, 2010 7:29 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm just saying-it's entertainment

it’s optional.

“whiner”-I’m just referring to this one post, not judging you as a person-if I remember correctly, we’ve never met!

Sorry if the word ‘whine’ got to you-but you do see my point, right? They’re not “ripping you off”
You’re choosing to pay those prices. It’s not a necessity, like you’re heating bill.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 24, 2010 1:11 AM CST up reply actions  

No big deal..yeah we haven't ever met..but if we did we'd laugh over a beer..

My point was you’d like to take your kids to see a sport at a reasonable price is all..peace

by Bobbiblue on Jan 24, 2010 4:57 AM CST up reply actions  

H.S football. Cheap and the kids play for fun.

Texas: Where God goes to relax.
Unless he's watching the Cowboys.

by GunsUp on Jan 25, 2010 6:25 AM CST up reply actions  

Yea Gun, if they don't fix this CBA thing..that's what you'll be

watching in 2011..H.S. Football, and it won’t be cheap just cheap.

by Bobbiblue on Jan 25, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks for the info, Dave

This puts us more “in the know”

by BishopWest on Jan 23, 2010 1:56 PM CST reply actions  

So we can sign two players for over 5.5 millions

one + another one since Montrae Holland is leaving as an UFA.

Vince Wilfork should definitely be one of them.

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 2:03 PM CST reply actions  

I think Wilfork is 31

How many more years of solid production does he have left? I’m just wondering whether it would be detrimental to our long-term health if the Cowboys were to sign him to a fat contract.

What about a safety or a linebacker? For that price, we might get vast improvement at a position that is more in need.

Upgrade to a BTB Platinum Account to view this signature.

by accidental innuendo on Jan 23, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Wilfork is 28 according to espn

we don’t need a safety or linebacker. I’m happy with our starters at safety and our backsups (Ball and Mike Hamlin). Linebacker we are pretty stacked and ILB Stephen Hodge and OLB brandon williams comes back this year as well

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions  

linebacker

is reliant on one of those rookies taking a step, which is a little worrysome. We can’t rely on ALL of our starters to stay 100% healthy every year.

by foyesboys on Jan 23, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

You can say that about every position

we are about as as stacked at linebacker as we are at any position except for runningback

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions  

yea i check he's 28 .............

according to the NFL site……. We could get him but he may look 4 one last pay day….I too was lookn at potential players and i notice Tennessee has a RFA DTby the name of Tony Brown.. which i saw was posted on boyzfan 94 fan post about restricted free agents.

 I look at his stats for the past 5 seasons and he have been productive…….. But i know thats just stats do any of you guys actually seen this guy play or what his character is like?

by lostar2009 on Jan 23, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions  

hmmm....

if wilfork is a RFA….. I do kno New England has Ron Brace… N waitn…. Wont b a bad move he and Rat and play DE & DT….. Any rookie we may draft will take time….. Plus NE might just b ok with a mid round pick…. Those guys r stack with picks plus i dnt thnk they hav the cap 2 retain alot of players ex…. Seymour

by lostar2009 on Jan 23, 2010 2:42 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

he is unrestricted

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Did Holland make 5.5?

In the case of all final eight teams, the first year salary of UFAs they sign to replace those lost cannot exceed the first year salary of the player lost with limitations on the per year increases.

If so, that was a seriously bad investment.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jan 23, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions  

oh your right

dang

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Is Holland our only relevant UFA?

That’s pretty impressive work by Jerry, if so.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jan 23, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions  

he is from my knowledge

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions  

It does not matter what he made in 2009

It matters what he gets signed for in 2010. If some team is so stupid to give Holland 5.5 million per year then Dallas will get an exemption equal to the value of his contract.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Holland made...

about $1 million last season. Since he was traded from the Broncos for a 5th round draft pick, he is under that contract. Given his provlivity to hang out too much at the buffet line and he hasn’t really played in a couple of years, it is quite unlikely he gets $5.5 million from any team. Not that you were implying he would, but just for the record.

by BVandy on Jan 23, 2010 6:12 PM CST up reply actions  

There is an exception clause to the Final 8 rule

The final eight teams are not restricted from signing players that were under contract going into 2010 and are then wavied by their current club.

It is expected that teams will drop some high profile players that have contracts that pay them significantly more then they are worth. If most of Roy Williams 12+ million was not guarenteed he would be one of the players getting waived and thus eligible to sign with final 8 and final 4 teams.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Unfortunately, they will likely be underachievers like Roy.

I’ve got to think that if they are a big name guy and get cut, then it is because they aren’t playing to the level of their contract.

by Baked Potato Soup on Jan 23, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe

There may be some good players that are making 10 million or more and refuse to renegotiate to a more reasonable salary that reflects their current play level. Also, many contracts have balloon years at the back end and team used to rework these contracts to avoid the cap hit. Without the CAP hit they will cut these players if they will not agree to the teams proposals.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:12 PM CST up reply actions  

not necessarily

it could very well be a guy who was just overpaid vs production (ie marion barber)

by foyesboys on Jan 23, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions  

actually I think a lot of the money gets moved into capped years

so I don’t think you’ll see a lot of that.

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions  

There is nothing in the current CBA that penalizes teams for dropping existing contracts.

If they want to add penalties they would have to put it in the next CBA. That seems unlikely, considering that the only group that would want to add it (small market teams) is really focused on revenue sharing.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:43 PM CST up reply actions  

What other years?

Once the owners opted out the contract does not govern anything related to a Salary cap in 2011 or beyond. There is not a clause in the contract to restart the cap.

If the owners wish to institute any type of Salary cap in 2011 they have to get the players to agree to it. The rules for this possible future salary cap only exist in negotiator’s minds at this point.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:50 PM CST up reply actions  

You can't just dump a players guaranteed money into the uncapped year
Can’t the uncapped year be used to dump salary without penalty?
No. The CBA rules regarding bonus acceleration into the current year when a player is released do not apply in uncapped years. Normally, in a capped year, releasing a player before June 1 would mean whatever guaranteed money allocations from future years would accelerate into the current year’s cap, which in some cases would put the team over the salary cap (like having $10million of bonus allocations accelerate into 2009 from releasing a player during 2009). However, the 2006 CBA allowed teams to designate two pre-June 1 cuts as post-June 1 cuts. If a player is released after June 1, that acceleration is divided equally into the current year and the next year, as long as that next year wasn’t uncapped (which, again, means the team would have $10M accelerate into 2009 by releasing that player before or after June 1, 2009 in this example). Trades, no matter before or after June 1, would always trigger acceleration. In an uncapped year, there is no acceleration at all; neither into the current year nor into the current year and the next year. When a player is released or traded during an uncapped year, his bonus amortizations in future years remain intact.. For example, if Player X is released in 2010 (uncapped) and has $4M bonus amortizations in 2010, 2011, and 2012, those $4M cap hits would stay in each of those four years and not accelerate

http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=266c5de6eaa8c9c97257c4cc84fe0719&topic=52816.msg1118513

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 23, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions  

They invoked a option on the contract that did not allow the CBA to end in its natural course

The natural corse of the CBA governed what happed in 2011 and 2012. It no longer does that. We do not have one uncapped year. They ended the CAP as we know it unless they can agree to put it back in play. It is unlikey that it will go back in play exactly the same way it was in the 2006 CBA

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Not sure how reliable a source this is, but...

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/nfl-uncapped-year-donovan-warren

“The NFLPA believes that the owners are going to use the uncapped year to clean up their books. With no salary cap, there will also be no minimum salary. Right now, teams are forced to spend at least 85% of the salary cap. With no cap teams could cut players with bad contracts without a cap hit and without a minimum team salary requirement owners could keep salaries low for the season to build up cash reserves in anticipation of the 2011 lockout.”

Of course, this doesn’t say that owners don’t have to pay the contract (it is a contract, after all), it just says teams won’t take a salary cap hit, since there is not salary cap, at least for now.

by BVandy on Jan 23, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Most NFL contracts are not guaranteed

Most NFL contracts are a mix of guaranteed and non-guaranteed monies. Signing bonuses and sometimes roster bonuses are guaranteed. It is a rare NFL contract that guarantees salary for future years.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 6:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I posted a link to the NFL CBA below

Most articles on the topic focus on the NFL’s talking points and sometime the content of Article LVI (Final League Year) (pg 237)

Article LVIII – Section 3 (a) (pg 240) defines the termination rules the league Management invoked. In effect it states that all aspects of the agreement with the single exception of the NFL players draft expire at the end of the 2010 league year. There are lots of clauses in Article XXIV (Salary Cap) of the CBA that govern the rule for 2011 & 2012. These were made irrelevant when the CBA was terminated two years early.

The players union has publicly stated they will not agree to the CAP in the next CBA. Goodwell countered that the league did not have a salary cap in 1993 and was able to come to agreement and implement one and that there is no reason why that can’t happen again. At this point noone can tell us if they will have a new cap, much less what the implications of cutting players in 2010 will be in those new rules.

I think the players fears mentioned in the article are well founded. Teams would be wise to use this time to cut players whose contracts greatly exceed their performance. That’s just not the type of thing the NFL puts in its press releases.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 6:54 PM CST up reply actions  

In the blog article that you referenced

the author made the assumption that 2011 and 2012 become capped year that are governed by the rules of or similar to the 2006 CBA. There will either be a 2011 CBA or we will all be pissed as their will not be NFL football.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 4:36 PM CST up reply actions  

So If We Cut Roy

We will have to pay into the future for the guranteed money Jerry owes him? That is surprise to me; this sucks.

by Iowacowboy on Jan 23, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions  

I think who ever wrote what you read were misinformed

The CBA opt out clause invoked what the call the Final League year. As in the year before the final end of the agreement between the players and the owners. Once that year is over it ends all agreements on things such as salary cap and prohibition on strikes and owner lockouts.

As of March 2011 they basically are no longer partners and everything is up for negotiation. The Players union’s public position is that they will not agree to any sort of Salary cap in the new CBA. That remains to be seen, but either way we are in uncharted waters and we can’t go look up what the future rules will be as they are yet to be determined.

NFL CBA

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 4:07 PM CST up reply actions  

uncapped year

I’m no caprophagiest, so I’ll check in here from time to time to see where we stand.

Go Cowboys!

by brushpile on Jan 23, 2010 2:51 PM CST reply actions  

x2

Leigh Tiffin is not a bad choice either, but I would definitely take Hunter Lawrence over him based solely on that 46 yarder he nailed to win the Big 12 Championship at Cowboys Stadium.

by Damnsammit on Jan 26, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe both sides have enough brains to not

let the golden goose die. A year without the NFL will open up a can of worms for other leagues to startup. Only bad can come to both sides by not having a season.

by DIRE WOLF on Jan 23, 2010 3:22 PM CST reply actions  

Agreed...but the 2010 uncapped year is happening

The owners will use it to lower player cost.

The game of chicken is being played over 2011.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 3:28 PM CST up reply actions  

If there is no NFL games in 2011

that would the closet thing to hell on earth I could think of. :)

by DIRE WOLF on Jan 23, 2010 6:09 PM CST reply actions  

Thanks Dave

Good article. Makes more sense now. Every time I think that there is no way the players and owners would risk missing the 2011 season, I recall the egos involved and the greed on both sides and believe that those morons could let it happen.

by oldboysfan on Jan 23, 2010 6:45 PM CST reply actions  

I hope the lockout does not happen

but I am not optimistic.

I think the owners are going to try and force significant long-term change and the players will be unwilling to accept it simply based on threat. The owners have spent four years getting ready for this scenario and will not agree to a short term solution to what they see as long term issues.

The financing of the stadium deals that teams like Dallas made have deferral clauses in case of a work stoppage. The TV contracts have clauses paying the teams a significant portion of their revenue for a work stoppage. Many coaches contracts have clauses that reduce their compensation during a work stoppage.

I REALLY REALLY hope I am wrong as the Cowboys have a young nucleus and it would be tragic to waste a year on sports labor issues.

by Trey, on Jan 23, 2010 7:09 PM CST reply actions  

brandon marshall

I keep hearing stuff about him coming to the cowboys, anyone have more info on this?

by TONYINCC on Jan 23, 2010 8:36 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

Brandon Marshall isn't coming to the Cowboys

Why would they bring in another WR? That’s one of the strongest positions on the Cowboys. Besides, who are you going to give less balls to? Witten? RW2? Austin?

by osa1011 on Jan 23, 2010 10:04 PM CST up reply actions  

i was just asking about

The rumors, and obviously Roy would not be here, and marshall and austin and wittend w felix in the backfield.

For the record I don’t think we need him, I was just asking for any validity.

by TONYINCC on Jan 23, 2010 11:07 PM CST via mobile up reply actions  

Agreed

He may be immature, but he wouldn’t have the hold that T.O. did in the locker room. He would have to fit in and work hard just like the rest of the guys. And if you could make him happy in monetary terms (like you know Jerry would), I think he would be just fine.

As for the on the field talent, that is self-evident and would be awesome to pair with Austin.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Jan 24, 2010 1:29 AM CST up reply actions  

Yep...

Will it happen? I highly doubt it, but I would like to see it.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Jan 24, 2010 2:53 AM CST up reply actions  

Marshall Immature?

So was Pacman. Marshall is a low life scum bag . . . his baggage is much more like Pacman than TO.

by Iowacowboy on Jan 24, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions  

First of all, for the sake of comparison, Brandon Marshall is a much much better player on the field than Pacman is. He is a legitimate #1 receiver and can make plays that not too many other players can.

As for the off-the-field issues, I agree that Marshall has definitely had Pacman-like issues. However, I feel like his talent would certainly justify taking a chance on Marshall, especially since Marshall has never served any jail time.

And when you compare Marshall to RW, I would much rather have a player with off-the-field issues than on-the-field issues.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Jan 24, 2010 6:18 PM CST up reply actions  

Pacman could go on a coke binge at a strip club, smoke pot, and eat nothing but brownies all offseason...

…and still be in better shape with more skills than half the CB’s in the league. That dude has skills but is a total idiot when it comes to off the field (and sometimes on the field) problems.

by Damnsammit on Jan 26, 2010 3:59 PM CST up reply actions  

The line between on and off field issues is a blurry one at best

Pacman couldn’t even get on the field after a while. Besides the constant (and unwanted) media attention, the team’s reputation suffers (see Cinci) and eventually he might as well be a locker room cancer.

FREE THE OGLETREE!!!

by dunkman on Jan 27, 2010 6:52 AM CST up reply actions  

We already took out the garbage

When we got rid of Pacman and Johnson and dumped TO. And some here want to start it up again with Marshall? Take a good look at his background and record!!!

by burmafrd1944 on Jan 24, 2010 9:00 AM CST reply actions  

Locker Room issues

When there is a problem, you address it, you don’t keep trying to bring in ego-centered players until it works.

Golden Tate with Miles Austin, and a big Offensive Tackle in the second round would solve our problems. Look at Golden Tate’s highlights, when he scores, he acts like nothing happened.

Golden Tate can believe it's not butter.

by labone7 on Jan 24, 2010 12:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Not as bad on the field

But bad off the field.
Don’t need it.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 24, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Are you serious...

RW pouts but the comparison of his pouting to Marshall are ridiculous.

Marshall not only distracts but he also had lots of off the field problems.

by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Jan 24, 2010 5:12 PM CST up reply actions  

+1

Exactly

Drago says, "We must break you!"

by APerfectStar on Jan 26, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Marshall?

I hope they’ve learned their lesson and skip him.
After cutting/eating RW’s contract (which would be a prerequisite to signing Marshall) it’d be quite a step to then pay Marshall big money. Even Jerry will probably skip that one.

Could we work a trade, RW for Marshall? And we throw in a 3rd rounder too? That makes more sense, but is as likely as, well, a big trade in the NFL.

Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009

by Realist Larry on Jan 24, 2010 12:59 PM CST reply actions  

Tebow had his presser at the Senior Bowl today

I like what he had to say about Riley Cooper, whom I really like and now that he is not playing baseball anymore and focusing solely on football I think he can live up to his potential.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/SeniorBowl/reports/PressConferences/Tebow.php

2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it

by quincyyyyy on Jan 24, 2010 7:26 PM CST reply actions  

I wonder who will pick Tebow..

I think that kid is the real deal, and may very well be the next Favre-like player..I know the Cowboys or Giants don’t need him..but Washington or Philly might grab him..You guys need to beef up your O-line, while my team needs DT and secondary help, so our teams will be focussed on those things..I hope he gets drafted by the Bum-fuck Egypt Pharoahs, so we don’t have to worry about playing against him.

by Bobbiblue on Jan 26, 2010 3:28 AM CST reply actions  

It'll be interesting too

to see how he progresses in the game as a QB. I think one thing is certain – he’ll take it seriously and work his butt off.

FREE THE OGLETREE!!!

by dunkman on Jan 27, 2010 6:50 AM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Dallas Cowboys blog for the SB Nation network. We talk Cowboys 24/7/365. Join the discussion but follow the community guidelines.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

222724_1014143404454_1551120017_30067740_5911_n_small
Jason Garrett: From Process to Promise
Rush_hour_small
Is Doug Free Overpaid?
97946_giants_cowboys__football_large_small
The Hindsight Games Part 1: J.J. Watt
Rush_hour_small
Rohpuri's Spin on MTD's Latest Mock Draft: Cowboys Edition
97946_giants_cowboys__football_large_small
The Anthony Spencer Scenario

Recent FanPosts

Small
Offseason Priorities
Small
Starters, dominant players, and BPA
Dez_bryant_small
What we need is for Jerrah to act like a GM and be proactive and fix the team with $17M under the cap resources
Small
It's Rabble's Fault
Small
Do what Philly did in 2011, only better
Dez_bryant_small
How The Giants GM Would Fix The Cowboys Overnight ... Good Read Jerrah!!!!
Zzzzwww_small
Twitter GM Mock

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

New_headshot_small Dave Halprin

Lead Writer

Captain_small One.Cool.Customer

Profile_small Brandon Worley

Ollogo3_copy_small KD Drummond

Contributing Writers

Hotdoglu_small Aaron Novinger

Emmittintro_small rabblerousr

Dr_fate_small Tom Ryle

Moderators

Ns_08bstockb-thumb-200x185_small scottmaui